Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1267 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Dalip Kumar

2003-09-10

S.S.GREWAL

body2003
JUDGMENT S.S. Grewal, J. - The State of Punjab has instituted this appeal against the judgment dated 13.8.1991 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, whereby the accused/respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 29.7.1988, at about 12 noon, Shri Dhani Ram, Food Inspector, under the supervision of Dr. S.P. Jagat, D.H.O., Hoshiarpur, inspected the shop premises of the accused/respondent situated in the Court premises, Hoshiarpur. The accused/respondent was having in his possession about 15 litres of unindicated boiled milk contained in a big Patila for sale to general public. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the respondent and after serving a notice Ex. PA on the respondent, intended to purchase the milk as sample for analysis. The Food Inspector made the entire bulk homogeneous before purchasing the sample and then purchased 750 mili-liters of milk against payment of Rs. 3.90 paisa, vide receipt of Ex. PB. The purchased milk was then divided in three equal parts and put in three dry and clean bottles. The sample bottles were sealed as per procedure contained in the Act. One sealed sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab Chandigarh for analysis and the remaining two sample bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority. Vide report Ex. PD, the Public Analyst found the sample milk to be deficient by 13% in milk fats and as such complaint, Ex. PE, was lodged against the accused/respondent. 3. The accused/respondent was charged on 20.10.1989, after recording the pre-charge evidence. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses. After the close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused/respondent was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, wherein he denied the allegations of the prosecution and claimed false implication. He next submitted that the sample was not taken in his presence and that the milk was not meant for selling but for preparing tea to be served to his customers. In defence, he examined DW.1 Shri T.S. Sohi, Advocate, who proved the defence versions set up by the accused. 5. He next submitted that the sample was not taken in his presence and that the milk was not meant for selling but for preparing tea to be served to his customers. In defence, he examined DW.1 Shri T.S. Sohi, Advocate, who proved the defence versions set up by the accused. 5. After hearing the APP for the State and the defence counsel, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur vide his judgment dated 13.8.1991, acquitted the accused/respondent of the charge under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, the State of Punjab has instituted the instant appeal. 7. I have heard Shri Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Punjab for the State, Shri G.S. Savra, Advocate for the respondent and careful gone through the record of the case. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Shri Dhani Ram, Food Inspector had stirred the milk before taking the sample as he had mixed the milk with a cup. It is so also stated in his cross-examination and as such the findings of the trial Court that milk was not stirred and was not properly mixed are uncalled for and the judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that the boiled milk was lying in a vessel and thus its fat must have came at the top of it. If the same is mixed with a cup then its fat cannot be mixed again with the milk. So, even if there was any mixing, the same was not proper. This fact has not been reported or mentioned in the documents prepared at the time of taking sample. He further contended that the findings of the lower Court are correct and are free from any doubt. 10. Admittedly, the boiled milk was laying in a vessel and generally, its fat or the malai comes at the top and it cannot be remixed in the milk with a cup. Secondly, it was also not mentioned in the documents prepared at the time of taking sample that milk was properly mixed. So, the findings of the lower Court that the milk was not properly mixed before taking sample are just and proper. Secondly, it was also not mentioned in the documents prepared at the time of taking sample that milk was properly mixed. So, the findings of the lower Court that the milk was not properly mixed before taking sample are just and proper. There is nothing in the arguments advanced before the Court nor in the grounds of appeal which may call for any interference by this Court. I find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.